Purpose of Summit: Review Progress on Millennium Declaration

The main purpose for this World Summit was to review progress since the Millennium Declaration, adopted by all Member States in 2000. This Declaration contained what became known as the Millennium Development Goals. These goals, which all 191 member states have pledged to meet, all for 2015, include:

A halving of hunger and poverty;

Attaining universal primary education;

Drastic reductions in child and maternal mortality;

Promoting gender equality;

Improved environmental sustainability;

A fairer global trading system; and

Reversing the spread of HIV/AIDS and other deadly diseases.

The above would form a major part of the Summit dubbed “Freedom from want.” Other issues that the Summit were to be addressed included:

Under pressure after the beginning of 2005, in the wake of these Iraq-related issues and scandals, UN General Secretary Kofi Annan, released a report titled In Larger Freedom calling attention to the need for UN reform. In particular he wanted Security Council reform issues to be resolved before the 2005 World Summit. Unfortunately, that has not happened.

Draft Outcome Document Leads to Concerns of Weak Text

Leading up to the Summit, a number of drafts of the outcome document for the Summit were released. However, various countries and blocs have concerns for different reasons. For example, the 117 members of the Non-Aligned Movement sought to weaken the text on issues such as the proposed new Human Rights Council and the increasing powers for the UN Security Council to intervene militarily in conflicts around the world.

Reasons that these countries have typically been weary of such issues include that

They often have poor human rights records themselves;

They see the richer countries being more influential in these areas, especially the UN Security Council, where they have little say and thus could feel quite powerless, and sometimes even threatened.

US Wants to Do Away With Most Text, even the Millennium Development Goals

It is perhaps the US stance that had concerned most countries, though, including allies.

As the Washington Post reported (August 24, 2005), “the Bush administration has thrown the proceedings in turmoil with a call for drastic renegotiation” of the draft agreement that all the attending world leaders would sign.

The administration publicly complained that the document’s section on poverty was too long!

Instead, the United States sought to highlight the importance of the Monterrey Consensus, a 2002 summit in Mexico that focused on free-market reforms, and required governments to improve accountability in exchange for aid and debt relief.

The Post also added that “In meetings with foreign delegates, Bolton has expressed concern about a provision of the agreement that urges wealthy countries, including the United States, to contribute 0.7 percent of their gross national product in assistance to poor countries.” This is despite the fact that the Monterrey Consensus reiterates that commitment (which the US was pushing and signed up to) and that countries agreed to this over 30 years ago, and the US, along with many other rich nations, have hardly ever provided close to that amount.

Furthermore, Bolton “has also objected to language that urges nations to observe a moratorium on nuclear testing and to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which the Bush administration opposes.”

Why would the US be so hostile to the United Nations goals, considering it is its largest funder? The answer is complex and perhaps too deep to answer quickly here. In short though, a few reasons include:

The US, as sole superpower, has often found itself going against international opinion, which is often expressed at the United Nations.

The ability of the US to flex its muscles, so to speak, is often constrained (or attempted to be) at the United Nations, as the recent Iraq War exemplified. This has led to people in the US to call for withholding even more UN funding than it already withholds until it is reformed (in the ways that best meet US interests), or some to even say that they should pull out of the body all together.

Some in the US also see a conspiracy in the UN trying to be a sort of world government which would restrict the rights of the US.

Some of the above reasons are quite extreme, but gain popular attention in the right wing of US politics.

Take for example, John Bolton himself. He is a member of the ultra-conservative Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and was Senior Vice President of the ultra-conservative American Enterprise Institute.

In addition, in 1994, Bolton said of the United Nations: “There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States.” He also stated that “The Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If it lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference.”

Yet, he has also said that “the United Nations can be a useful instrument in the conduct of American foreign policy.” In other words, Bolton sees using the UN for America’s own agendas as ok. Indeed, he adds that “No one ... should be under any illusions that American support for the United Nations as one of several options for implementing American foreign policy translates into unlimited support for the world organization. That is not true now, and it will not be true for a long time to come, if ever.”

See also the UN and Development page (warning, that page is quite old, though may provide some context), and various sections through the geopolitics section of this web site for more information.

The US, however, typically has a far more reaching impact as it is far more influential and powerful than the poorer countries.

In short, the US looks to make the outcome of the whole document a weak one without much substance. Given the enormous number of changes the US is proposing, one would not expect them all to happen. However, the US has played a clever tactic here:

As the biggest donor to the United Nations, and, its biggest critic, as well as being the most powerful nation on the planet, it therefore has a real bargaining position which it has exploited here;

Other countries will have to typically compromise on US terms in order to get the US in on the outcome agreement.

The result will therefore be a much weakened document, even if the US does not get most of its 750 changes in there.

Summit Meeting Outcome

Unfortunately, the above prediction of a weaker final document came true. But, also controversial was the manner in which the final document was drafted right at the end.

Undemocratic process in getting a final document

Also of concern was the way in which the final outcome document was agreed to.

Because of the turmoil created mostly by the US leading up to this meeting and with all the reservations and changes they put forward in the document, there resulted a “closed-door consensus-based negotiations (which resulted in the final outcome document) where a few governments were allowed to exercise a veto over the will of the overwhelming majority of member states” as Inter Press Service noted (in the same article as linked to above). This was seen as a concern for it was undemocratic.

Another IPS report cited Bill Pace, executive director of the World Federalist Movement, who said that “the five permanent members of the Security Council, namely the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia, behave in the General Assembly as if they have veto rights and fiercely refuse to allow any consideration of peace and security issues. And a few others, mostly military governments or permanent member wannabes, wreck the negotiations from the other side.”

That same article also ended with criticism of the US:

On Wednesday, the New York Times squarely blamed the United States — and specifically its “notoriously undiplomatic” Ambassador John Bolton — for the impending failure of the summit.

The Times accused Bolton of insisting on a very long list of unilateral demands. “The predictable effect was to transform what had been a painful and difficult search for workable diplomatic compromises into a competitive exercise in political posturing.”

As a result, said the Times editorial, the most tragic loss is a genuine opportunity to help the one billion people around the world who each live on less than a dollar a day.

This meant other countries would not have time to understand any changes, which for such a meeting is crucial. This may seem “efficient” for some, but on such important issues this slight bit of “bureaucracy” is important.

Former British Secretary for Development, Clare Short is quite vocal in her criticism of the United States, and is worth quoting in length:

It is hardly surprising that, in a bitterly divided world where the world’s hegemonic power has set aside international law and declared that it will act unilaterally whenever its interests are suited, it has been difficult to agree on a reform package for strengthening the UN.

... The ambition [to review progress on the Millennium Development Goals progress] has widened to try to agree on a major package of UN reform.... But given George Bush's resistance and the sour atmosphere post-Iraq, the reform agenda has been too ambitious and generated strong opposition for reasons that were often self-contradictory.

... n particular, those who advocate a new convention on terrorism fail to understand how deeply unhappy people are about the hypocrisy of those who use state power unlawfully and cause massive loss of civilian life - and then expect all countries to sign up to a definition of terrorism that fails to acknowledge the right to resist occupation.

Despite all of this, the commitment to the Millennium Development Goals has probably been strengthened by the US challenge and then the recognition that even for the US, this was a step too far. In addition, the focus on monitoring country-by-country progress against the goals has set up a new spirit of competition between states over reductions in poverty, children in school, better health care for the poor and more sustainable use of environmental resources. Progress is being made.

... We are, without doubt, living through a very disappointing period in world history.

On the human rights front, there was agreement to create a Peace Building Commission, and a Human Rights Council.

Stopping genocide. Wording on this was more concrete that other issues: nations agreed on a collective responsibility to protect civilians facing genocide and similar atrocities. Governments can no longer use sovereignty and non-intervention norms as excuses to avoid having to act to protect civilians from mass killings.

Countries reiterated the need to achieve MDG, even though US initially wanted to strike all mention of it.

Education: supporting elimination of user fees for primary education

Debt relief: acknowledges the G8 commitments (which were imperfect, though a starting point), and acknowledges that others such as middle-income countries may also need some sort of debt relief.

HIV/AIDS: endorsed the G8 commitment to universal access to HIV treatment by 2010

Tax evasion: more mention of this problem

Reiterated the need for member states to provide the UN with adequate resources as needed (because the UN has a financial crisis of its own whereby some states, the US in particular, has long withheld its dues — and then blamed the UN for being ineffective!)

A number of problems or weaknesses included the following:

Generally the final document was quite vague in many areas, and often simply reaffirming past commitments, without adding anything new or substantial.

The urgency of reaching the Millennium Development Goals was lacking, it was felt by many. That most of the world is behind on this right now was not really stressed.

Trade: risks remaining unequal. There was not much text and what there was was weak and favored rich countries, mostly. There was mention of endorsing trade liberalization but nothing about eliminating the harmful and hypocritical rich country subsidies, or giving more power to smaller/poor countries to have more say in their destiny

Poor countries are still subject to neoliberal economic policies prescribed and pressured onto poorer countries by the richer countries and institutions such as the IMF and World Bank

Terrorism: did not get a definition of terrorism, so while condemnation of it was strong by all, more specific issues were not discussed.

The International Criminal Court was not mentioned either

Aid: not only was there little commitment to foreign aid, but it was again tied to conditions often deemed as unfair.

The above is a very quick and simple overview. A number of different organizations have provided useful summaries on the final outcome document, and its strengths and weaknesses, including the following: